City wants law firm to help with waste site

About 250,000 gallons of waste oil are expected to be removed

Feb. 10, 2013

Written by

VINELAND — The city anticipates hiring a specialist in environmental law in the face of what it is portraying as continued back channel efforts at the state Department of Environmental Protection to give a foreign company control of a defunct hazardous waste treatment facility here.

City Solicitor Richard Tonetta on Friday said the legal issues with the former Pure Earth Inc. facility are beyond his expertise and best handled by an expert. The City Council could take up the matter of retaining special counsel as early as Tuesday night.

Tonetta declined to name the law firm the city is considering, citing negotiations.

Tradebe Environmental Services LLC is a large, international hazardous waste treatment facility operator based in Spain. It runs several sites in the United States and has expressed interest in buying the Pure Earth site.

Meanwhile, in another development, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday issued a contract to a hazardous waste disposal service broker to arrange for subcontractors to remove about 250,000 gallons of waste oil from the North Mill Road facility.

The waste oil would be sent for disposal at one or more of six facilities across the country, depending on how the waste oil is classified.

The EPA took over the Pure Earth site, at the state’s request, last summer to contain and then remediate large, untended stores of solvents, refinery wastes and contaminated soils. In January, the agency said it was ready to remove some of the oil waste products.

Federal regulators are classifying Pure Earth as a “Superfund removal site,” rather than a “Superfund cleanup site.” As of this week, the project has drawn a total of about $1.5 million in federal funding including an allocation of $550,000 this month.

Paul Kahn, the EPA on-scene coordinator in Vineland, said Friday the latest influx of money was critical. The removal operation had stalled due to a delay in getting further federal funding.

As a result, Kahn said work stopped on Feb. 1 and equipment and crews left the area. Their work is to resume on Feb. 19.

Kahn said the award of a waste removal contract on Friday is a significant step forward for the removal project.

“With that new funding, we’ll be able to go forward pumping out the tanks and disposing of the waste oil — which was one of the more significant threats posed,” Kahn said. “We’ll be able then to concentrate on the drums of chemicals we’ve collected, about 500 of them, from around the site. Then we’ll go through the process of identifying the chemicals and then eventually shipping those drums off site as well.”

The EPA has stated that it does not plan to ship out decontaminated soil, however. That is to be left to the new owner.

Kahn, however, said the agency now is preparing “an option” for soil removal, possibly this spring or early summer. “But at this point, it is just an option,” he said.

City officials are increasingly angry and frustrated over unsuccessful attempts to find out what DEP and Tradebe are discussing. The department is undercutting both the city and the federal government, according to Tonetta.

At the DEP, a spokesman responded on Thursday to city officials’ statements that a DEP delegation had provided “answers to questions posed” during a Jan. 29 tour of the site. “We could not answer questions on behalf of Tradebe or the EPA,” DEP spokesman Bob Considine stated.

Mayor Ruben Bermudez, Council President Anthony Fanucci and Councilman Paul Spinelli were among city officials walking the site with state officials.

Tonetta said the city has learned that the DEP went to court to get access to an escrow account holding money meant to pay for remediating the site. There is about $260,000 set aside in that account, he said.

Tonetta said the state “went behind” the city and the EPA to get that money. He contends the money will go to Tradebe.

Considine confirmed that the DEP is trying to get the money, although it has run into obstacles.

“DEP is assuming responsibility of the closure fund, as the previous owners are now defunct and the bank that issued the trust is getting out of that part of the banking business,” Considine stated.

“The department, however, does not yet have control of the funds due to some fee issues with the bank that we hope (to) be resolved in the short term,” he added. “The money will ultimately be transferred to a site specific fund, which can only be used for closure purposes.”

Kahn was aware of the DEP move to seize the escrow account. EPA lawyers were talking to the state about it and that the federal viewpoint is the money should be in EPA hands, he said.

“We think it should because EPA is doing precisely what Pure Earth’s closure plan included, which is to remove waste from the property,” Kahn said. “So since we are acting as their surrogate, we feel that money should go to EPA.”

As for Vineland itself, Kahn said, the city has been “very cooperative” with his agency. He particularly praised the Fire Prevention Bureau’s assistance.

Tonetta said the EPA has stated that it will not give its approval to Tradebe, or any potential successor to Pure Earth, if the DEP does not require the new owner to assume responsibility of cleaning up the entire site.

At City Council’s meeting last week, Tonetta reported to members that he believes a transfer in ownership of the facility to Tradebe is imminent, which is why the city wants to hire the Vineland marketing firm of Tofanelli & Associates in part to be able to publicize what was happening. The contract is worth up to $20,000, according to a proposed resolution.

“We need to properly inform the residents of North Vineland — as well as the city of Vineland — what’s going on, what the DEP is attempting to do,” Tonetta said at the Feb. 5 meeting. “And in order to properly handle that issue, we felt that it was necessary to bring someone on board who can advise the press, advise the public, so that the proper information” gets out.

Fanucci, agreeing with the idea, said the city’s posture needs to show it is adamantly opposed to the facility being reopened.

Considine said it is not the DEP’s place to say whether Tradebe is about to acquire the property. “Tradebe has met with city officials and expressed an interest in acquiring the site assuming they are the successful bidder with the bank holding the mortgage,” he stated.

Fanucci said the Jan. 29 tour of the site was his first look at it in a long time. “It’s not in good shape and we don’t want it in Vineland,” he said.

“But I don’t believe we’re getting the cooperation we should have out of the DEP,” Fanucci said. “And I frankly, as a citizen here, don’t want that. And we really need to do the best that we possibly can, essentially to protect the people in North Vineland.

“I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t be cooperative, but it just seems we’re getting stonewalled,” he added. “And to be honest with you, what was done in the previous four, five, six years? I don’t know if (former mayor Robert) Romano or his people had any contact with DEP on this. It might be a good question to find that out, too. I don’t know if they stonewalled them, ignored it. I don’t know.”

Fanucci said he believes calls to the commissioner of the DEP and possibly the governor are coming without a change in how the DEP is handling the situation.

As for Tradebe, the council president said, “We’re seeing a pretty bad scenario now. If they operate, who knows what its operations would be like? Would it be accurate? Would it be done right? Or would it e just like everybody else that’s been there in the most recent past that’s left this place really go by the wayside. Not cleaning it up. Not being environmentally friendly. Not being secure. Even the fences around the place aren’t that high.”

According to property records, the owner of the property at 3209 North Mill Road is Rezultz Inc.

The city’s tax collector’s office states that two tax liens are outstanding on the property.

One was bought by an investment firm on Dec. 7, 2011, for $34,811. A second lien was sold on Oct. 24, 2012, to a separate investor for $59,087.96. Under state law, the lien holders can start foreclosure proceedings two years after their purchases.

You will automatically receive the TheDailyJournal.com Top 5 daily email newsletter. If you don't want to receive this newsletter, you can change your newsletter selections in your account preferences.